**The Perennial MIKE TROUT Thread**

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by dcbaseballcards

Playoff Experience: The Angels put together some horrible teams
Winning Seasons: The Angels put together some horrible teams
MVP: Some MVP's are better than others. Trout put up 8.8, 9.9., and 8.1 wins in his 3 MVPS and had 4 years that were better than some or all of those years.

Meanwhile Murphy won his MVPs with 6.1 wins and 7 .1 wins (those would be Trout's 9th and 11th best seasons). Murphy's first MVP should have gone to Carter/Dawson/Schmidt and he earned his second one. I see you're giving him credit for being the best in a "down" year when it came to stats.

Trout was the CLEAR best player in 4 of his 8 peak seasons, a 5th season was nearly 10 wins and second place, and the other 3 he put up Murphyian numbers or better.


Gold Gloves: HAHA. Pick your favorite defensive metric. Trout was better than Murphy. Gold Gloves were reputation. Even if you could convince someone that Murphy was a slightly better defender, you've got a huge uphill battle to face on offense and baserunning.

League average HR: It looks like you are attempting to put their offensive production into the league and era context, and that's admirable! The best way to do that is to compare OPS+ and wRC+. Those take a player's total offensive production and adjust them to ballparks and league averages. It is a measurement VS. league average.

I'm happy to explain these basic stats to you sometime so you stop embarrassing yourself on here by claiming Murphy was better than Trout.

I am more than happy to reciprocate basic stats and have you look shameful in classifying a 8 year run vs the performers who were durable enough to do it for at least 12 or longer. A career isn’t just regular season like you attempt to make it.

If you are claiming that Trout is equal to Murphy as a outfielder, that just crashes your entire stance. Murphy not only could run but unlike Trout, he had a accurate cannon of a arm. Stop with the nonsense.

I would pick Trout over Murphy and Bobby Bonds as a hitter, but they all played on teams that were not perennial playoff teams. All three were in one 3 game series for their career. All 3 stunk and had poor WPA’s.

The reason why being durable is so vital is that a team doesn’t want a AA level player performing in place of Mays, Mantle, Pujols, Miggy, Trout, Murphy or Bobby Bonds. Teams want their best player in the lineup doing what the definition of a player does - “Perform” !

To say that voting for a MVP, Gold Glove or Cy Young isn’t influenced by reputation or spite, look at the voting the year Porcello beat Verlander. When two voters from the same southern city don’t put Verlander in the top I believe 3 or 4, where just one of them has him in the lowest position then Verlander at worst ties for the award.

Name the 4 times where Trout deserved MVP. It wasn’t in 2012, he was outdistanced rather significantly and it was worse in 13. The year he just lost in I believe 15 to Josh Donaldson by a extremely tight vote. One player made the playoffs, the other didn’t. Success of the team has value.

[dcbaseballcards]

Originally Posted by Stifle

I am more than happy to reciprocate basic stats and have you look shameful in classifying a 8 year run vs the performers who were durable enough to do it for at least 12 or longer. A career isn’t just regular season like you attempt to make it.

If you are claiming that Trout is equal to Murphy as a outfielder, that just crashes your entire stance. Murphy not only could run but unlike Trout, he had a accurate cannon of a arm. Stop with the nonsense.

I would pick Trout over Murphy and Bobby Bonds as a hitter, but they all played on teams that were not perennial playoff teams. All three were in one 3 game series for their career. All 3 stunk and had poor WPA’s.

The reason why being durable is so vital is that a team doesn’t want a AA level player performing in place of Mays, Mantle, Pujols, Miggy, Trout, Murphy or Bobby Bonds. Teams want their best player in the lineup doing what the definition of a player does - “Perform” !

To say that voting for a MVP, Gold Glove or Cy Young isn’t influenced by reputation or spite, look at the voting the year Porcello beat Verlander. When two voters from the same southern city don’t put Verlander in the top I believe 3 or 4, where just one of them has him in the lowest position then Verlander at worst ties for the award.

Name the 4 times where Trout deserved MVP. It wasn’t in 2012, he was outdistanced rather significantly and it was worse in 13. The year he just lost in I believe 15 to Josh Donaldson by a extremely tight vote. One player made the playoffs, the other didn’t. Success of the team has value.

You're the guy arguing Murphy is better than Trout. We are laughing at you.

Trout getting 4 WAR in 100 games and a replacement player (definitionally) getting 0 WAR is as good as Murphy getting 4 WAR in 160 games. (And if the team is actually good, chances are Trout is replaced by an above-replacement player)

It's fine if you want to consider how 24 other players perform when you're evaluating the 1 player. I just don't find it that relevant when baseball is a 1 on 1 game, pitcher vs. batter, vs. fielder. The voters don't either now. (And they vote before the playoffs)

Trout deserved MVP in:
2012 (2 Wins better than Cano, 3 wins better than Miggy) If Trout had 3 more hits and defeated Miggy's traditional triple crown, would that change your perception?

2013 (A mere 1.5 wins above Miggy)

2014 (Toss up with Kluber, you seem like a guy who thinks a guy who plays 30 times a year can't be the most valuable. Just a hunch there.)

2015 (More than 2 wins above anyone)

2016 (10.5 wins, one more than Betts, almost 4 more than everyone else)

Maybe he deserved more, but I'm tired typing out all of those great seasons.

[pete2345]

Trout defenders are a sensitive bunch. The guy has been highly overrated his entire career. Now that more people are seeing him for what he is the bagholders are triggered hard lmao at people who are more knowledgeable than themselves. His cards will continue to drop and at some point the drop will be drastic. Sell NOW or next spring training when their is always a glimmer of hope that quickly fizzles once he is injured as always.

[dcbaseballcards]

Originally Posted by pete2345

Trout defenders are a sensitive bunch. The guy has been highly overrated his entire career. Now that more people are seeing him for what he is the bagholders are triggered hard lmao at people who are more knowledgeable than themselves. His cards will continue to drop and at some point the drop will be drastic. Sell NOW or next spring training when their is always a glimmer of hope that quickly fizzles once he is injured as always.

I don't think the discussion has been about card values recently. There are some yahoos saying he's not a hall of famer or that he is Dale Murphy territory. I don't own any Trout, but if I did, I wouldn't come to blowout to pump the cards by stooping to a debate with the dunce who prefers Dale Murphy.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by dcbaseballcards

I don't think the discussion has been about card values recently. There are some yahoos saying he's not a hall of famer or that he is Dale Murphy territory. I don't own any Trout, but if I did, I wouldn't come to blowout to pump the cards by stooping to a debate with the dunce who prefers Dale Murphy.

Yeah. Murphy had a fine career but had an OPS that's 0.176 lower than Trout and an OPS+ that's 52 lower than trout. They're not even close. I've got nothing to pump either, owning perhaps no more than a couple hundred worth of Trout cards that will probably just sit in a box in hopes he can put up MVP type numbers again before he retires.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by dcbaseballcards

I don't think the discussion has been about card values recently. There are some yahoos saying he's not a hall of famer or that he is Dale Murphy territory. I don't own any Trout, but if I did, I wouldn't come to blowout to pump the cards by stooping to a debate with the dunce who prefers Dale Murphy.

You can’t debate the value of rookie cards in the 70’s-early 90’s because it wasn’t even close in quality of limited cards.

As far as Pete’s take, Trout in my opinion is like a Hal Newhouser as a position player but without the World Series. Newhouser had the greatest all time run for a pitcher in MVP recognition but because he wasn’t durable, most MLB analysts have him roughly as the 46th greatest pitcher.

Durability is a HUGE factor in regards to how players are critiqued to their peers. Trout could have been the greatest player in the Y2K era. The odds have flipped from possibly being the 1st to moving to the 4th best Y2K player if Betts remains healthy while winning MVP’s and World Series and Trout only performs sporadically.

No, I’m not going bandwagon like many Trout fans try to force others to agree and I’m not going to negate a player as great as Trout and say he is garbage. He just isn’t durable and has zero playoff wins with all that WAR.

[dcbaseballcards]

Originally Posted by Stifle

You can’t debate the value of rookie cards in the 70’s-early 90’s because it wasn’t even close in quality of limited cards.

As far as Pete’s take, Trout in my opinion is like a Hal Newhouser as a position player but without the World Series. Newhouser had the greatest all time run for a pitcher in MVP recognition but because he wasn’t durable, most MLB analysts have him roughly as the 46th greatest pitcher.

Durability is a HUGE factor in regards to how players are critiqued to their peers. Trout could have been the greatest player in the Y2K era. The odds have flipped from possibly being the 1st to moving to the 4th best Y2K player if Betts remains healthy while winning MVP’s and World Series and Trout only performs sporadically.

No, I’m not going bandwagon like many Trout fans try to force others to agree and I’m not going to negate a player as great as Trout and say he is garbage. He just isn’t durable and has zero playoff wins with all that WAR.

Newhouser had a great 7 year peak. 31st best among pitchers in history. Career wise, he can be ranked in the 50s.

Among outfielders, Trout's 7 year peak ranks him 6th, behind Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Cobb, Williams. Throw in the other positions and you've got Hornsby and Gehrig ahead of him. (WAR is not precise so I'll lump in Pujols, Wagner, Mantle, and Musial with him)

Trout is already roughly the 32 best hitter of all time. The rest of his career dictates if he's in top 25-30ish (Beltre, Ripken, Kaline, Mathews) territory, or (realistic but not probable) around 10th place (Gehrig, Henderson, Ott, Mantle) territory. That would require 6 full seasons of a 5 win average, or 8 seasons of 4 win average).

Newhouser is not a great comparison to draw, if we're being honest with ourselves.

This could all be one big troll job, comparing RELATIVELY mediocre players to the guy of the decade with a top 10 all-time hitting peak and possible top 25 hitter of all time.

Can I interest you in an egg?

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by dcbaseballcards

Newhouser had a great 7 year peak. 31st best among pitchers in history. Career wise, he can be ranked in the 50s.

Among outfielders, Trout's 7 year peak ranks him 6th, behind Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Cobb, Williams. Throw in the other positions and you've got Hornsby and Gehrig ahead of him. (WAR is not precise so I'll lump in Pujols, Wagner, Mantle, and Musial with him)

Trout is already roughly the 32 best hitter of all time. The rest of his career dictates if he's in top 25-30ish (Beltre, Ripken, Kaline, Mathews) territory, or (realistic but not probable) around 10th place (Gehrig, Henderson, Ott, Mantle) territory. That would require 6 full seasons of a 5 win average, or 8 seasons of 4 win average).

Newhouser is not a great comparison to draw, if we're being honest with ourselves.

This could all be one big troll job, comparing RELATIVELY mediocre players to the guy of the decade with a top 10 all-time hitting peak and possible top 25 hitter of all time.

Can I interest you in an egg?

In other words, when you type in best pitchers in the 1940’s a thread will come up with - Feller / Leonard / Newhouser ?

Newhouser was hands down the Best in MVP voting - (2) 1st’s, 2nd & 9th. Was league leader in ERA 4 consecutive seasons. To say that having the Greatest MVP voting history for a pitcher being listed within a limited list as best for a decade being mediocre, that is a CLOWN response. Newhouser is a HOF, not some 1 year wonder. Did he have issues with durability, yes, and it set him back because a player is a performer and Newhouser wasn’t able to have a high end lengthy career, sounds familiar.

You make me laugh like going to a comedy club. When, “Where are the clowns” song comes on, I’ll look in the tent to spot you.

[dcbaseballcards]

Originally Posted by Stifle

In other words, when you type in best pitchers in the 1940’s a thread will come up with - Feller / Leonard / Newhouser ?

Newhouser was hands down the Best in MVP voting - (2) 1st’s, 2nd & 9th. Was league leader in ERA 4 consecutive seasons. To say that having the Greatest MVP voting history for a pitcher being listed within a limited list as best for a decade being mediocre, that is a CLOWN response. Newhouser is a HOF, not some 1 year wonder. Did he have issues with durability, yes, and it set him back because a player is a performer and Newhouser wasn’t able to have a high end lengthy career, sounds familiar.

You make me laugh like going to a comedy club. When, “Where are the clowns” song comes on, I’ll look in the tent to spot you.

I said relatively (and even typed that in all caps) mediocre.

I knew I would trip up those with severely limited reading comprehension.

But I didn't think you'd ignore the rest of the post, though.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by dcbaseballcards

I said relatively (and even typed that in all caps) mediocre.

I knew I would trip up those with severely limited reading comprehension.

But I didn't think you'd ignore the rest of the post, though.

Like being relatively durable. I’m sure you can comprehend that.

[ThoseBackPages]

more names the hobby doesnt care about haha

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by dcbaseballcards

You're the guy arguing Murphy is better than Trout. We are laughing at you.

Trout getting 4 WAR in 100 games and a replacement player (definitionally) getting 0 WAR is as good as Murphy getting 4 WAR in 160 games. (And if the team is actually good, chances are Trout is replaced by an above-replacement player)

It's fine if you want to consider how 24 other players perform when you're evaluating the 1 player. I just don't find it that relevant when baseball is a 1 on 1 game, pitcher vs. batter, vs. fielder. The voters don't either now. (And they vote before the playoffs)

Trout deserved MVP in:
2012 (2 Wins better than Cano, 3 wins better than Miggy) If Trout had 3 more hits and defeated Miggy's traditional triple crown, would that change your perception?

2013 (A mere 1.5 wins above Miggy)

2014 (Toss up with Kluber, you seem like a guy who thinks a guy who plays 30 times a year can't be the most valuable. Just a hunch there.)

2015 (More than 2 wins above anyone)

2016 (10.5 wins, one more than Betts, almost 4 more than everyone else)

Maybe he deserved more, but I'm tired typing out all of those great seasons.

Why is it you never mention the playoffs when comparing any of these players ? I have a pretty good idea why. It’s taken into account by the HOF committee and by those who rank players.

2012 - Miggy won by a enormous amount and had a .281 run production that I’m sure WAR people hate because it’s a durability / availability stat that hasn’t been vested in the AL in 75 years. Cabrera carried that team ! Forget the triple crown or playing 3rd base to do so.

2013 - Cabrera put up clutch stats that still are amazing. He beat out Trout in High Leverage, RISP, MOB, 2 out W/RISP & Late & Close, in other words, when score was needed, he came through.

2014 - I’m not a huge fan of giving a player who pitches 235 innings the award, but I can live with it. Trout began his clutch hitting that was dynamite for 3 consecutive seasons.

2015 - was a coin flip with Donaldson but Toronto went to the playoffs. Both were fantastic in the clutch, high leverage, RISP, etc.

2016 - once again Trout came up huge in critical situations / opportunities / all of what he lost to Cabrera in 12 & 13 he came up huge 14-16, it’s just that Donaldson was his equal in 15. Josh won because of playoffs.

[SidVish]

This thread is hilarious. I've never seen the name Dale Murphy more times in my life than this thread. Also, when you're mentioning playoffs as a measurement of greatness in baseball you're doing it wrong.

Also, I have a question. Since Ohtani is the greatest baseball unicorn we have ever seen how come the Angels didn't make the playoffs in his 6 years there?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[dcbaseballcards]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Why is it you never mention the playoffs when comparing any of these players ? I have a pretty good idea why. It’s taken into account by the HOF committee and by those who rank players.

2012 - Miggy won by a enormous amount and had a .281 run production that I’m sure WAR people hate because it’s a durability / availability stat that hasn’t been vested in the AL in 75 years. Cabrera carried that team ! Forget the triple crown or playing 3rd base to do so.

2013 - Cabrera put up clutch stats that still are amazing. He beat out Trout in High Leverage, RISP, MOB, 2 out W/RISP & Late & Close, in other words, when score was needed, he came through.

2014 - I’m not a huge fan of giving a player who pitches 235 innings the award, but I can live with it. Trout began his clutch hitting that was dynamite for 3 consecutive seasons.

2015 - was a coin flip with Donaldson but Toronto went to the playoffs. Both were fantastic in the clutch, high leverage, RISP, etc.

2016 - once again Trout came up huge in critical situations / opportunities / all of what he lost to Cabrera in 12 & 13 he came up huge 14-16, it’s just that Donaldson was his equal in 15. Josh won because of playoffs.

"Trout only deserved 3 MVPs, not 4, and therefore, he is basically Dale Murphy"

If you truly cared about leverage and WPA, you'd know Trout is 46th all time for hitters, and likely finishes his career with DOUBLE the WPA of Murphy.

Here's your participation trophy, buddy: We all truly appreciate your contributions.

[ThoseBackPages]

Stifie is a long time Trout hater

[atk825]

Originally Posted by SidVish

This thread is hilarious. I've never seen the name Dale Murphy more times in my life than this thread. Also, when you're mentioning playoffs as a measurement of greatness in baseball you're doing it wrong.

Also, I have a question. Since Ohtani is the greatest baseball unicorn we have ever seen how come the Angels didn't make the playoffs in his 6 years there?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Ohtani has only ever been 6 games up in first and 12 games over .500 once in his career. And that was this weekend as a Dodger.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by SidVish

This thread is hilarious. I've never seen the name Dale Murphy more times in my life than this thread. Also, when you're mentioning playoffs as a measurement of greatness in baseball you're doing it wrong.

Also, I have a question. Since Ohtani is the greatest baseball unicorn we have ever seen how come the Angels didn't make the playoffs in his 6 years there?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I’m utilizing Murphy more for his MVP’s and counting stats by age 32. As far as playoffs, being able to critique how a player performs under high leverage situations may be uncomfortable to Trout fans. Many other members want to see how the very best stack up when the stakes are at their height. ARod, Mauer, Votto and many others flatlined when comparing to let’s say a Mantle. Do some members want to keep the comparisons strictly to the regular season because it’s a safer comparison?

We can put up awards, playoffs and counting stats by age 32 of Trout, Murphy or even Bobby Bonds to the Mays & Mantle comparisons and see which players Trout is closer grouped into ?

[bbteamw]

[ThoseBackPages]

RED!!!!!!

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Stifie is a long time Trout hater

Trout lovers despise facts and hide from reality. Trout is “relatively” durable and as much as Trout fans want to hear it, it’s honesty. Trout as great as he is, had a short timeline of high level production. At one point he was a wonderful CLUTCH hitter. His situational hitting has gone south in a hurry and he has zero pressure from fans and media being on a team that has only contended a couple times. Those couple seasons were when Trout was performing more than disabled.

Many members have a hard time realizing that their superstars have a shelf life of greatness and then they are unable to be the performer that would never fade. The number of Players who did a Ortiz are scarce.

If hating is being a realist, then I’m guilty. I’ll let you dream that he is still the youthful, durable performer who for a 3 year stint was as clutch as any player in the game, 14-16, his 17 season was very solid but not at that level. I’m a bastard of telling it the way it is. Look at his clutch stats this and last season. He is not 24 anymore.

After 33 where will he be compared to Pujols & Cabrera vs Murphy & Bobby Bonds. His counting stats will be much closer to the latter and they started their careers at a older age than Mike.

[ThoseBackPages]

i think the main issue that many of us have with you is that you keep steering things to on field, current day (or the past few years) performance.

i dont think anyone would argue he is now what he once was.

this is a hobby message board. so when you bring up hobby nobodies like Bobby Bonds and Dale Murphy, you are going to get pushback.

Trout carried the hobby for a long time. His time has passed.

SHOULD his cards be "worth less"? Thats a great discussion point. Perhaps, but the market is what the market is.

owning Mike Trout cards is part of a wonderfully rounded baseball card collection

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

i think the main issue that many of us have with you is that you keep steering things to on field, current day (or the past few years) performance.

i dont think anyone would argue he is now what he once was.

this is a hobby message board. so when you bring up hobby nobodies like Bobby Bonds and Dale Murphy, you are going to get pushback.

Trout carried the hobby for a long time. His time has passed.

SHOULD his cards be "worth less"? Thats a great discussion point. Perhaps, but the market is what the market is.

owning Mike Trout cards is part of a wonderfully rounded baseball card collection

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

i think the main issue that many of us have with you is that you keep steering things to on field, current day (or the past few years) performance.

i dont think anyone would argue he is now what he once was.

this is a hobby message board. so when you bring up hobby nobodies like Bobby Bonds and Dale Murphy, you are going to get pushback.

Trout carried the hobby for a long time. His time has passed.

SHOULD his cards be "worth less"? Thats a great discussion point. Perhaps, but the market is what the market is.

owning Mike Trout cards is part of a wonderfully rounded baseball card collection

I’m guessing you are roughly in your late 20’s to mid 30’s ?

I’m sure you never seen Bobby play in his prime and I’m doubting that you were around to watch Murphy play. I’ll give you that Bonds was never the hobby hero that you see Trout is.

I’ll tell you this, Murphy didn’t have autographs, superfractors, game used, a slew of different rookies when he had won his second consecutive MVP at 27. When Murphy was at his prime the internet was at its infancy. It was a entirely different hobby from the late 70’s to 87.

For the youthful, Beckett was the Ebay of Dale Murphy’s era. The Beckett wasn’t just a price guide but a who’s hot, who’s not. When a player made the cover, it was coveted as being meaningful. Beckett decided to put out a monthly price guide and had the choice of roughly a century’s worth of cards. They had a Clemente and the quad Murphy. They utilized Murphy because he was the Trout of the mid 80’s hobby which is like saying a Model T which was made in heavy volume is equal to a vehicle that was limited to 3 produced.

To say Murphy was a nobody in the hobby is oblivious of what the hobby was. It’s not that difficult to identify those who we’re not in the hobby 4 decades ago. As massive as Murphy was in the days before a plethora of competitive card companies, his hobby love quickly decimated because there wasn’t anything of significant rarity for collectors to go after.

[ThoseBackPages]

i am 53 years old and have been collecting for far too long.

the same excuses you use for Murphy not being relevant now, dont seem to apply to Mantle, Mays, etc.

Could that happen to Trouts cards? its possible.

i am talking about the hobby today, in 2024 where comparing Trout (who carried the hobby after Pujols died down) to Murphy is silly.

remember, this is the hobby we are talking about, which is not always on par with what happens on the field (Heck, look at Mookie!)

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

i am 53 years old and have been collecting for far too long.

the same excuses you use for Murphy not being relevant now, dont seem to apply to Mantle, Mays, etc.

Could that happen to Trouts cards? its possible.

i am talking about the hobby today, in 2024 where comparing Trout (who carried the hobby after Pujols died down) to Murphy is silly.

remember, this is the hobby we are talking about, which is not always on par with what happens on the field (Heck, look at Mookie!)

I’m nearly 60 and I remember Murphy being everything in the hobby until his mid career knee injuries crushed his career. It may have been being a catcher in the minors and at the beginning of his career ?

Our hobby is all about comps, I’m sure you are aware of this.